What's wrong with our country, and how're you gonna fix it?

POSTED BY: Cuda
UPDATED: Thursday, December 11, 2025 19:41
VIEWED: 28394
PAGE 9 of 12

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 2:59 AM

A politeness that is forced by fear is no politeness at all.

Quote:
Originally posted by RonaldRaygun:
An armed society is a polite society.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
SigmaNunki,

Excellent points in most respects except for gun control. Unfortunately you've not got the truth here. In all, and I mean ALL locations where concealed-carry laws have passed, crime has gone DOWN.

THE OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS BY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS REDUCES CRIME.

Nuf sed.

.......Ruxton

----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!

STEVE580

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 4:13 AM

Carrying a gun in a purse is an example of a concealed weapon, if I'm not mistaken, and seems reasonable to me; and..

Quote:
A politeness that is forced by fear is no politeness at all.

..huh?

As for your second point - guns in houses raises gun accident rate - if you take proper saftey precautions, it is impossible for young children to gain access to these firearms. And if you want to ban everything that kids can hurt themselves with, houses would be pretty barren.
-Steve

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 5:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Carrying a gun in a purse is an example of a concealed weapon, if I'm not mistaken, and seems reasonable to me; and..

This is what I mean by opinion war.

Now tell me, how is the woman going to stop a mugger with that gun in her purse if it is taken from her? And even if she puts up a struggle how is she to open the purse and get that gun with someone wrenching it around? Or how is a woman going to stop a rapist if he comes up behind her and wrestles her to the ground, etc. Carrying a gun may be "reasonable" in theory but in practice it is a *very* different beast.

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Quote:
A politeness that is forced by fear is no politeness at all.

..huh?

Re-reading the previous posts will lead you to my meaning of, people will be polite because they fear being shot. Fear is no way to manage a society. Well... any civilized society at least.

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
As for your second point - guns in houses raises gun accident rate - if you take proper saftey precautions, it is impossible for young children to gain access to these firearms.

1) It's *never* impossible!

2) At no point did I include children in my argument. Where are you coming from? Re-read my post. It is rather clear that I meant intentionally shooting, unintentional victim.

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
And if you want to ban everything that kids can hurt themselves with, houses would be pretty barren.
-Steve

Now this is just getting silly. You can't liken removing book shelves because children can climb and fall or having powerful solvents to firearms. They are apples and oranges and should be treated as such.

----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!

SHSSAY

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:35 AM

I haven't worried about the issue of gun control for several reasons.

A.) Its an issue that will not be solved any time soon because it is written in the Constitution that citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms. The members of the NRA will fight that point to the death, even if it is a point that is largely outdated. In addition, making a law that prohibits citizens from carrying guns means ammending the Constitution. That is difficult to do. Many people are uneasy about doing that.

B.) The main reason I don't give this issue much of my consideration is the fact that even if guns are made illegal in our country, it won't have much impact on the crime rate. I just don't believe that. Making something illegal has yet to stop people from obtaining and using the illegal substance in question. Prohibition is a perfect example. People still managed to get alcohol even after it was illegal. A more recent example is marijuana, cocaine, meth, etc. Making something illegal makes it more difficult for a criminal to obtain, but criminals have a great deal of ingenuity, and they'll get it anyway.

C.) Lastly, if you did manage to prohibit the general public from obtaining and using firearms in their entirety, there still wouldn't be a significant decrease in crime. There are other weapons to be had. People have been reduced to using knives, baseball bats, ice picks, screwdrivers, their bare hands in the absence of a firearm. Eliminating one weapon from a person's arsenal is not going to stop him/her from inflicting harm or violence on another person if they are inclined to do so. They'll simply find another way to inflict that violence.

If I believed that making guns illegal would lower the prevalence of crime in our country, I would throw my whole support behind the cause to ban them and argue the point with ferocity. But I don't believe it. That doesn't mean that I am on the other side either. It simply means I don't think this is an issue that is as significant as many others believe it to be.

"Two by two, hands of blue." -River Tam

GEEZER

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 12:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

The question now becomes, do we prevent crime by fear that the potential victim may have a firearm or by more passive means (ie preventative eduction, promoting a more non-aggressive society, etc.)?

----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!

Why does this end up being an either/or question? Why not both? And a few other things besides? You may promote a less aggressive society, but unless you're willing to brainwash everyone, there are some who just won't accept your message. These may be the one's who are deterred by the threat of active self-defence or perhaps mandatory sentencing. Others may resort to violence as a response to the hopelessness of poverty, and would respond to better lives and more hope.

If it were me, I'd be looking for workable methods that allow the most individual choice and liberty to the folks who don't break the laws, rather than punishing them by loss of rights for something thay haven't done.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BROWNCOAT1

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 2:03 PM

Shssay wrote:

Quote:
B.) The main reason I don't give this issue much of my consideration is the fact that even if guns are made illegal in our country, it won't have much impact on the crime rate. I just don't believe that. Making something illegal has yet to stop people from obtaining and using the illegal substance in question. Prohibition is a perfect example. People still managed to get alcohol even after it was illegal. A more recent example is marijuana, cocaine, meth, etc. Making something illegal makes it more difficult for a criminal to obtain, but criminals have a great deal of ingenuity, and they'll get it anyway.

C.) Lastly, if you did manage to prohibit the general public from obtaining and using firearms in their entirety, there still wouldn't be a significant decrease in crime. There are other weapons to be had. People have been reduced to using knives, baseball bats, ice picks, screwdrivers, their bare hands in the absence of a firearm. Eliminating one weapon from a person's arsenal is not going to stop him/her from inflicting harm or violence on another person if they are inclined to do so. They'll simply find another way to inflict that violence.

If I believed that making guns illegal would lower the prevalence of crime in our country, I would throw my whole support behind the cause to ban them and argue the point with ferocity. But I don't believe it. That doesn't mean that I am on the other side either. It simply means I don't think this is an issue that is as significant as many others believe it to be.

Excellent points.

Gun control will not make it much more difficult for criminals to get guns. Most criminals get their guns through illegal means now, and banning guns will only do tow things:

- make gun runners and illegal gun rings richer.

- take a means of self defense away from law abiding citizens.

I own several guns, and have a concealed permit for two of them. I have never had to use a weapon on a civilian & hope I never have to do so. I do feel better knowing I can defend my home, family, and self if the need arises. I am former military, and have taken several gun safety courses. I have educated my children on the truths about firearms, and take every necessary precaution to keep my weapons away from my children.

Gun control sounds great in theory, but in truth it will not solve anything.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

SCIFIDO

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 4:55 PM

This gun control issue is the closest thing yet to making this thread too polarized to continue. I, for one, just wanted to add one thing.

I know that Michael Moore is loved by some and absolutely friggin hated by others, but his documentary BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE addresses these issues in a strangely even way.

Moore belongs to the NRA and has for a long time, and he takes great effort to compare the US and Canada when it comes to gun use, ownership, and violence without playing to either side.

What he ends up saying is that the laws of both countries have little impact, and that the cultural differences are really why we US citizens have generally more violence than our Northern neighbors.

If, and I do mean IF, you can stomach renting it, I highly recommend it.

Now if anyone wants to discuss the Automotive industry and its role in politics, that is my career field, and I'd love to change the topic.

Again, this has been a fascinating discussion so far, and I hope it can continue.

The only way to know your country is to live outside it for a while.

ARAWAEN

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 6:18 PM

The only gun control I could conceive of supporting is banning the manufacture as opposed to the ownership. Not to say I wouldn't support efforts to decrease violence and the tendency to react violently from the populace. I also don't mind a background check to make sure the purchaser isn't a known criminal or terrorist.

I am not a big supporter of concealed weapons, I would prefer that everybody carried them openly.

I would also like to see basic firearm safety in the curriculum. Things like: Always treat a weapon as loaded until you have checked yourself! Never point a gun at a person or animal unless shooting them is one of the options you are willing to accept!

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 6:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
You may promote a less aggressive society, but unless you're willing to brainwash everyone, there are some who just won't accept your message.

Why do you think that I want to brainwash everyone? Promoting doesn't mean brainwashing. It just means that I would like to see the US evolve into a less violent culture and someone promoting that is pretty much the only way it'll happen.

I didn't want to get into this debate and somehow let myself get drawn into it. I won't change my mind and you guys won't change yours. I will leave this debate and will probably never understand why guns are so important to you guys.

On another note though, I did enjoy this lively debate as the other online community I'm involved with couldn't have had such an intelligent discussion. They would just let it degrade into a "your momma" type argument. I think I will like it here

Till next time.

----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!

GEEZER

Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Why do you think that I want to brainwash everyone? Promoting doesn't mean brainwashing. It just means that I would like to see the US evolve into a less violent culture and someone promoting that is pretty much the only way it'll happen.

----
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!

I don't think you'd want to brainwash everyone, or even anyone. Just noting that the only way to successfully apply a single solution is to force everyone to follow it.

The "EITHER we promote non-aggression, OR we all go armed" scenario seems to follow the current perception that we have to find one perfect solution to every problem. As long as we are dealing with individuals, that's never going to work. Different folks need different motivations to reach the desired result.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PREV PAGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT PAGE